Here a flip, there a flop, everywhere a flip flop!

This Election season is off to a roaring start. In one corner, we have Mitt Romney. In the other we have Barrack Obama. They are very different.
Or...are they? Well, if I stand today and listen to one and then the other, they are absolutely different and there is a clear choice to make between
them.

What happens if I look back at the records of them both and how they have 'Evolved' their thinking on just one issue as an example? For this
example, I've chosen the Gay and Lesbian marriage/military issue. Why? Well, it's the most recent and current issue the two camps have chosen to
fight, primarily. Second though, it's one of the more stark contrasts in showing how these two really are peas in a pod and simply APPEAR different.
Lets look at tone of what is in the public record here.

In fairness and given my personal bias in this election cycle, I'll start with who is "on my side", as I'm supposed to believe. Mitt Romney. So,
Mitt, how do you feel about the matter?

Nice photo, even if it is a bit dated. There is a flyer for a Gay Rights event being touted by Senator John Kerry and then Governor Mitt Romney. I'm
leaving that off because origin is questionable. It seems nothing about it was out of character to him at the time though.

His own words are informative though. (Uh oh... once out there, out there forever. His gun position on that page is also notable, but off the scope of
my topic)

On Gay Rights All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney
believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of
survivorship.

(This just won't link for some reason. Source is Internet Archive: WaybackMachine, October 30, 2002 for romney2002 . com)

So.. we have one more item to consider on the Support -> kinda -> w/qualifications

Mitt's 1994 letter out to the Log Cabin Club of the Republican Party. Source

Well, that was an interesting look at Mitt Romney. Wait, though? Whats this? I don't believe I've been quite fair here. It seems I missed the other
Mitt Romney. Well, hello Mitt!

(2003)

Civil union law sought
Romney says move would satisfy the SJC

Under pressure to respond to the Supreme Judicial Court's decision on gay marriage, Governor Mitt Romney and a top House lawmaker said yesterday that
they believe the justices would be satisfied if lawmakers craft a civil union statute that grants many of the benefits of marriage but does not
legally sanction same-sex marriage. Romney and state Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty, the House chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, said
separately that they do not support legislation to allow gays to marry and believe the justices signaled that a parallel system of civil unions for
gays would meet state constitutional
muster.

BOSTON, Nov. 19 -- Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said Sunday that he will ask the state's highest court this week to order a ballot question on
same-sex marriage if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January. Romney said he will ask a justice of the state's Supreme
Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers do not vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the
final day of the current session. Romney's term as governor expires Jan.
4.

Unlike Obama, Romney says he hasn't changed at all. "I have the same view that I've had since running for office," he said.

But that could depend on which office he means. Back when Romney was running for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he promised to be a champion for "full
equality" for gays and lesbians — which many understood to include even gay marriage.

"His campaign distributed at the gay pride parade pink flyers that asserted that he would be a better and a stronger advocate than Ted Kennedy,"
recalls lobbyist Arlene Isaacson.

Well, this has been an interesting look at one Candidates "Evolution" Ahem...BS...Ahem...journey from wildly supporting to outshine even Ted Kennedy
to being a wishy washy politician to now, absolutely and 100% being against it and, he always has been!

But....There are two in this race, aren't there? I wouldn't want to leave the President out of the discussion. Obama is also addicted to cameras and
he's a real Ham when he tries...so this part is more appealing for the eye candy folks.

Let's start by going back a year or to and see how he felt about matters in the 90's

Well, now that seems clear and easy to understand. He was given straight questions and there, in black and white, are his straight answers. Agreement
isn't important if a man takes a stand and can keep it. Just taking a stand these days is rare enough to be remarkable. In 1996, it appears, he
did.

Here he is, in his debate for the Senate seat in Illinois, 2004.

OBAMA: Well, to answer the original question, I would love that child and seek to support them. I believe that marriage is between a man and a
woman but I detest the bashing and vilifying of gays and lesbians. Most gays and lesbians are seeking basic recognition of their rights so they’re
not discriminated against in employment or renting a house, so they can see their partner in a hospital. These are rights for everybody, not just some
people.

OBAMA: What I believe, in my faith, is that, a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God. And it’s not simply
the two persons who are meeting. But that doesn’t mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy, or with respect to civil
unions.

Obama articulates a very traditional view of marriage that aligned with the position of then President Bush, but no one blasted Obama as a hater
for it. Put Obama’s exact words in the mouth of any Republican and the loving, tolerant left will aim to wipe that person off the political
map.

Now lets see where Obama is at in 2012. First, this is an issue that kinda exploded out of nowhere for the timing. It's a major issue, but it's been a
back burner issue until just this past week or so. Now suddenly, it's far more important than war in the Middle East, Gas prices rising while supplies
drop and even the GOP's war on Women? A second place. Why the rush?

(Reuters) - Two big cases addressing marriage rights for gays and lesbians are on track to reach the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as this year,
keeping the focus on an issue President Barack Obama reignited with his endorsement this week.

Obama got both sides of the marriage debate fired up on Wednesday when he said he believes gays and lesbians should be able to marry. The comments
to ABC News completed the president's self-described evolution on the subject and thrust the issue into his 2012 re-election
campaign.

and of course, where there is urgency in a politician, there must be money involved. That is no exception here.

Obama's Store for LGBT items
(are we looking at a President or a CEO of marketing? Is that the White House or the latest style for a Wal-mart outlet??)

And finally, Barack Obama at a fundraiser with George Clooney. In full campaign mode. Now, Gay Marriage and rights are as American as Apple Pie and
it's a moral imperative, it seems, to see this through.

Los Angeles – President Barack Obama wasted little time casting his historic embrace of same-sex marriage as a political wedge issue Thursday,
telling a Hollywood fundraising crowd that it shows how his vision of the country differs from Republicans.

Speaking at a dinner at the home of George Clooney, Obama raised the issue gay marriage obliquely, saying simply to enthusiastic applause: "Obviously,
yesterday we made some news."

"It was a logical extension of what America is supposed to be," he said. "It grew directly out of this difference in visions: Are we a country that
includes everybody and give everybody a shot and treats everybody fairly?"

Now, I know many will disregard everything I said in opening the thread and using the Gay Marriage/Rights issue as an example for a variety of
reasons. It's an example, it's not the purpose, core meaning or veiled message of the thread. It is an example, but the best right now.

This is an example of the duplicity and the outright corrupt nature of the Politicians we have to choose from. Romney and Obama have both declared one
thing, then another, then another. I have brought but a few examples of each. The assortment online for Each man, with sourcing and documented
instance is truly staggering on just this one issue.

Both of these men would present this as evolving, if called on it. Romney won't even admit that much right now though, by saying his position simply
hasn't changed at all. For outright lie of the day on this issue, Romney takes 1st Prize with that one.

Others may take great comfort and joy that THEIR specific issue happens to be the center of the current political fight. Oh Goody! ...Some may think.
Change at last!! I'd note for the record, people surely thought the same thing in 2008, 2000 and 1992 on many other similar campaign issues. Change
came, but not much and never in ways people hope or wanted. Change from a politician must be a matter of benefit for votes. If change stops
being beneficial, it seems, so does the support. Both of these men have lived that example.

Obama, in particular, cites his Christian Faith and Deeply held beliefs based on that Faith. My examples don't simply cover one instance in one year,
but he's heard to say this twice. In reality, he's said it countless times. Now, how many of those who have TRUE Religious Faith and DEEPLY held
values based on that Religion also have "evolving" views on basic concept in doctrine and values?.....when the Church sure as heck hasn't budged. A
couple denominations have, but Obama wasn 't non-denominational was he? Indeed...He loyally attended one Church for 20 years.

Romney, on this situation as well, as some real problem. He's a Mormon and I understand, he considers himself to be devout. Fair enough to ask the
same question then. How do beliefs evolve or even shift on the core, fundamental and absolute values taught by the Church?

I didn't cite religion. They did. Each of them and repeatedly for that, too. Religion, once brought into it, should make ANY issue one looks at an
issue for stability and consistency of message. After all, that is the steady factor in society that generally doesn't change every 4-8 years.
However, both of these men, who claim this issue as their own and both have used the shield of 'Religious Faith' to cover the unpopular nature of
their beliefs have as quickly looked elsewhere when that wasn't a popular point to make.

So....... You've seen the examples, as limited as this selection is. You've surely seen far more from each candidate yourself. I have one question to
ask as we look at not one, but 4 choices for President.

Which Candidate are you voting for, and which version? They each have 2 to choose from. Personally? I'd love a man to support who just had one. Even
if I couldn't agree with that one, the fact it didn't change means more.

Maybe they both did what Obama says he did. Perhaps they simply "evolved" into their new positions. Obama is already President, and running for
his lame duck session, so he wants that Hollywood money. Romney, however, wants the religious right to rally behind him. Funny thing is, Obama could
say he's 100% against gay marriage, and Hollywood would still support him, and Romney could say he supports gay marriage, and the religious right
would vote for him. It's quite silly in the end.

I wish I could disagree, but I can't even if I have to chuckle at your way of putting it. People probably would still vote for each of them if they
literally swapped positions on this or a number of other issues. I believe that's a pretty stark statement on how it's devolved into voting for
party, ideology and sheer personality over substance and actual policy positions.

How else could both men in this race have Evolving and RE-evolving positions, yet both are blamed for flip flopping by the camp of the other and all
without the slightest trace of irony? lol.. It is a wild election cycle!

But when the chips were down, Obama backed same-sex marriage, whatever his personal tastes or views on the matter - which is all anyone can ask
for.

Romney not only flip-flopped but is letting either his pandering to the hard-right or his religious views dictate his policy, which means denying an
entire demographic of the population the same rights enjoyed by the rest.

Lol... Gotcha. You vote for Mr Flip, I'll vote for Mr. Flop and lets see, in 4 more years, if things really got anywhere either of us wanted or
hoped.

Personally, with all partisan hate and obsession this year aside for a moment, we'll get to the same place. Disappointment, disillusionment and ready
to vote for the next Bozo that swears it'll all be different. After all, that pattern has held for at least 25 years now. Why think anyone we see now
breaks the pattern by their own choice?

The thing about this while LGBT equality issue is that it coheres with many libertarian ideals of less government. Arch-conservatives want to create
laws to ban certain things like same-sex marriage, like the one recently passed in NC. More laws and more legislation to ban or outlaw something one
group of people are intolerant of.

I said in my OP and I said in the one following it... Someone would come and miss the whole point.

Of course, I don't own my thread any more than anyone else owns theirs. It's always a little disheartening though when I've either done such a poor
job of communicating my thoughts that the first replies are clear off into a direction never intended (A few fit that over time...err... my bad twice
over) or, despite multiple efforts to ask it not become an Obama Vs. Romney partisan bash fest, it only takes 2 replies on the thread to get there.

For the last note..and (sigh) probably what kills my own thread for further interest.. I'll just say again, I put over an hour and a half into
collecting things, dumping most of what I found for a dozen different reasons and finally arriving at what I put together here. It was intended to
show *BOTH MEN ARE POLITICIANS*. Not one over the other, and I didn't even mentioned the 3rd man out there.

It's one of my first tries with a OP post across multiple pages and with a very long word count planned right from the idea phase. Hell with it... It
may be my last too. Why spend so much time, and this isn't the first one, when it all amounts to is this? Kinda leaves a guy thinking the 1 paragraph
or even 2-3 line OP's are just as good when no one really seems to care much recently about which class of thread someone makes. Short and easy, or
long and time consuming.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Of course, maybe starting threads just isn't my strong point. Oh well. Whatever the case, to thy own thread be true, apparently.

Yup.. Definitely night night for the bunny... (hops off)

I thought it was a good thread, exposing the hypocrisy, which is why it didn't take off. You needed to say something like "all Democrats" or "all
Republicans" and then you'd start the fire storm of the partisan fools. Unfortunately for you, only one of the partisan hacks arrived and tried to
defend Obama with their "yes we can" blinders on.

Really,do you expect the American Public,to overlook EVERYTHING Obama says,because he did something he should have said,4 years ago ? You want the
American public to just be this mindless addicted sheep,and to continue to play the game,a game that has set up EVERY American to fail ?

You came up with a contrite theory and then tried to shoehorn reality to fit it. Unfortunately the voting and legislative record of one of your
candidates has been consistently in favor of extending and protecting the rights of those who identify as LGBT. You can make up your own opinions but
you can't make up your own facts.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United
States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and
was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a
marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits
for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in
two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that
it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In
response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice
(DOJ).

Yea, I agree with you on that completely. The t-shirts is what did it for me on Obama. Plus, come on, he had a standing policy that he was
'evolving' on an issue. I've never heard anything like that in my life. He literally got away for 3 years with saying 'well my view is x, but
expect it to be y in the future.' Did anyone really think he was 'evolving' the other way?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.